So far as I am concerned--aside from the invention of the internet--technology climaxed at 1969. It seems most of what is today touted as new or superior are simply cheap and inefficient rehashes of the old products. Take the fancy DSLRs and their numerous functions, of which I'm quite sure the majority is useless. Their Rube Goldberg-like complexity eschews the whole idea of an elegantly simple tool. Also, cars; an air-cooled Porsche engine, Mercedes-Benz straight six, or a 6 cylinder Bristol engine are perfectly adequate. Most of what is marketed today are inferior quality things with schlocky designs and disproportionate price-tags.

So far as I am concerned--aside from the invention of the internet--technology climaxed at 1969.

It seems most of what is today touted as new or superior are simply cheap and inefficient rehashes of the old products. Take the fancy DSLRs and their numerous functions, of which I'm quite sure the majority is useless. Their Rube Goldberg-like complexity eschews the whole idea of an elegantly simple tool.

Most of what is marketed today are inferior quality things with schlocky designs and disproportionate price-tags.

LK... Forget the internet, you realize that box you're typing in to would have filled a few dozen football fields in '69 and still not even ben close to as powerful as what you're using, right? And I won't even start on medical technology, etc. You're so far off here that I don't even know why I'm bothering.

So far as I am concerned--aside from the invention of the internet--technology climaxed at 1969.

It seems most of what is today touted as new or superior are simply cheap and inefficient rehashes of the old products. Take the fancy DSLRs and their numerous functions, of which I'm quite sure the majority is useless. Their Rube Goldberg-like complexity eschews the whole idea of an elegantly simple tool.

LK... Forget the internet, you realize that box you're typing in to would have filled a few dozen football fields in '69 and still not even ben close to as powerful as what you're using, right? And I won't even start on medical technology, etc. You're so far off here that I don't even know why I'm bothering.

I don't use a desktop; I use a controversial Apple Powerbook. I'm sure medical technology has exceeded what was existent in 1969, but still I wouldn't mind living circa 1969.

If anyone has ever wondered if your thoughts were completely idiotic...they may now rest assured that they are.

So what do you call the groups of people who use a '60s car as their daily driver or use a straight razor everyday or use a Leica rangefinder? There is a reason certain things are called classic, and it's not because of whimsy. Granted, I may have been presumptuous in saying that all technology climaxed in '69, however there is a distinct part that did. I have no use for pointless gadgets or the unappealing whirl of an electric car.

69! Nice time , fewer drugs to learn! Ah well, that apart, medical technology has made immense strides in terms of modern medical therapy. I mean like, baloon angioplasty, newer drugs for cancer, medical imagin technologies etc. Im not learned enough to comment on other technologies but med science sure has progressed a long way since then Peace be

Yes, nobody is denying that medical technology has far progressed beyond its 1969 stage; however, another question relevant to doctors, is whether technology acts as a potential handicap?

Artisan fans. The mainstream men's grooming industry is an extraordinary marketing success--based on multi-bladed razors and cheap foam--and becoming more and more profitable by touting itself as New and Improved! or something similarly hyperbolic. For a board of men who are interested in craftsmanship, I'm surprised at this complacency.

Porsche didn't start using water-cooled engines in their road-going cars until the mid 70s. Another trap that's easy to fall into is that we live with everything contemporaneous to us, so the schlock hasn't had time to fall by the wayside yet and seems to overwhelm anything worth keeping. --Andre

Why did I say water-cooled; I meant air-cooled. Yes, I can understand that sentiment; however, it seems the highest quality of contemporary products inevitably reference something from the past, whether in appearance, function, or some other element, which I find interesting.

I have mixed feelings on this as a Engineer. On one hand I am really passionate about creating technology but at the same time I don't really like using most of it. For example I don't own a cell phone, I think classrooms should only have chalk and chalkboard, and calculators really rot our mind. On the other hand I love the fact that my car thinks two steps ahead of me to ensure that even if I do something stupid I will walk away with all my limbs. It's a love-hate relationship at the end of the day I suppose. I love creating and playing with it but I just don't know if it makes peoples lives better... I know I am happiest in very low-tech environments.

Yes, nobody is denying that medical technology has far progressed beyond its 1969 stage; however, another question relevant to doctors, is whether technology acts as a potential handicap?

It is a handicap if you practice defensive medicine as you do in the states, then basically a person will have a lot more investigations, but then you will have a better chance of having the right diagnosis quicker. So overall I'd much rather have access to a multidetector CT scanner than a plain X ray box.